Recent content by rpd9803

But where is the lie? Platitudes aren't arguments.

Thanks for the clarity. It does seem like it's a formidable legal challenge to come up with an mechanism for creating an irrevokable (except for breach), perpetual license of a creative work between the IP-rights owner and everyone in the future.

My moral compass doesn't read strongly on anything that happens with rules for organizing make-believe with your friends, but that strikes me as a poor indicator of whether or not we'd agree on things.

I think I understand what you're getting at. The complexity of these liceneses seem like a big trap for young players.. I see CC-BY-4.0, I know pretty well what I can and can't do with that content.. if I see OGL (or presumably the "ORC" or whatever else) and its immediately unclear to me what...

Everyone seems hyperbolic, as a player that doesn't use much OGL content (basically only when I run a DCC funnel), its not pulling the rug out from me, its only pulling the rug out from under people that publish works under the OGL, which is not the community but mayyyyyyybe .05%? There are...

Forgive my non-lawyerness, But does this speak to the difference in revocation and 'authorization' (as the OGL seemed to couch 'current offer' for lack of better lawyer words) .. as in, it seems the OGL to me did not assert or oblgiate WOTC to offer it as-is forever, only that once a work...

Yes it is certainly hell, but I understand (as a software developer, not a lawyer!) accepting this complexity to ensure a product you have produced is Open and STAYS Open.. If I have written a (say) GPL implementation of X, I DON'T want Google to be able to fork X, improve it, and license their...

For viral versions of CC licenses, they will have the ShareAlike (SA) license set. So, Cc-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC-SA, etc. those (attempt) to require all derivatives to be licensed under the same (or compatible) terms. I’m not sure how they legally define compatible or any of that.

Bittersweet.. now everyone that had an absolutely wrong take will get to walk away from this thinking their expert legal analysis caused WOTC to cave :p I mean I'm certainly no lawyer, but I did manage image rights in a past life, so I've seen lots of licensing language, and honestly outside of...

I have suspected that since before WOTC went down this path they had already figured out that the piece of the DND revenue that comes from the die-hard community is mostly negligable.. I get them wanting a piece of million dollar kickstarters, but from the jump it seemed unlike WOTC cared to...

Hmm that's interesting, but doesn't that then mean that there's a split between "revoking" (as in, ending an OGL-licensed works authorized use of the license) and "Offering" .. like, I don't think the OGL language related to revokability, perpetuality, etc. applies to whether or not the OGL is...